Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rep. Hoekstra (Republican) responds to NYTimes
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006267.htm ^

Posted on 11/03/2006 10:21:47 AM PST by WBL 1952

From Michael Malkin's blog: Hoekstra's response to NYT admitting Saddam was apparently a very dangerous man.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cia; cialeak; fmsodocuments; iran; iraq; jveritas; msm; newyorktimes; nyt; nytimes; prewardocs; saddamdocs; saddamnuke
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-118 next last
"Yesterday's article by the New York Times highlights a number of important issues with respect to Iraq's WMD programs, as well as the importance of the documents that have been recovered in Iraq," said U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "I am pleased that the document release program continues to stimulate public discussion of these issues. "With respect to the possibility that documents may have been released that should not have been released, I have always been clear that the Director of National Intelligence should take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive documents. In fact, as of today the DNI had withheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed, and has become more risk-averse over time. If the DNI believes that the documents that were released were in the safe 40 percent, imagine what the 60 percent being withheld must contain.

"That said, it is also important to emphasize that the IAEA, contrary to its assertions, never raised any concerns about this material with the United States Government before going to the press. Similarly, the DNI's office has informed me that no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday. If there were such problems, they would have been better addressed through the appropriate channels rather than the press.

"These documents also raise several additional issues of interest. First, it is extraordinary that the New York Times now acknowledges that the captured documents demonstrate that '[Saddam] Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.' This only reinforces the value of these documents in understanding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Only 1 percent of the estimated 120 million pages of captured documents have been reviewed, and we must continue working to promptly understand these materials. If there is concern about Saddam's nuclear program, there should be similar concern about potential connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda suggested in the documents.

"Second, my staff's preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents. There is a serious question of why and how the Iraqi these documents in the first place. We need to explore that carefully - I certainly hope there will be no evidence that the IAEA had been penetrated by Saddam's regime.

"Finally, it is disappointing but not surprising that the New York Times would continue to participate in such blatant and transparent political ploys, including what I believe are improper efforts by the IAEA to interfere with U.S. domestic affairs. The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."

1 posted on 11/03/2006 10:21:47 AM PST by WBL 1952
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

And Hoekstra lands a left, a right, and now a shot to the chin! The NYT goes DOOOOOOWN


2 posted on 11/03/2006 10:25:14 AM PST by bybybill (`IF TH E RATS WIN, WE LOSE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
-- The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."--

--and if the Administration had a spine there would have been indictments for treason--

3 posted on 11/03/2006 10:25:33 AM PST by rellimpank (-don't believe anything the MSM states about firearms or explosives--NRA Benefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

Ouch, I felt sympathy pain for the NYT just reading that statement. Actually, it felt kinda good... ;-)


4 posted on 11/03/2006 10:26:05 AM PST by The Blitherer (We all know the truth now, and it is incontrovertible: Karl Rove is one magnificent bastard! - D. B.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

Good - someone in authority is repeating that key important sentence. Let it ring throughout the land - he had a nuke program.


5 posted on 11/03/2006 10:27:51 AM PST by rjp2005 (Lord have mercy on us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

How widely has this statement appeared? Michelle Malkin's blog, obviously, which is widely read on the internet. What about the NY Times? Have they deigned to acknowledge it? Will they print it?


6 posted on 11/03/2006 10:28:15 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rjp2005

bump


7 posted on 11/03/2006 10:31:04 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rjp2005

bump


8 posted on 11/03/2006 10:31:05 AM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bybybill

"Second, my staff's preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents. There is a serious question of why and how the Iraqi these documents in the first place. We need to explore that carefully - I certainly hope there will be no evidence that the IAEA had been penetrated by Saddam's regime."


WOW.........


9 posted on 11/03/2006 10:33:36 AM PST by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
The NYT goes DOOOOOOWN

They're only used to going down on the Democrats.

10 posted on 11/03/2006 10:34:00 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

Bears repeating:

"The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."


11 posted on 11/03/2006 10:36:03 AM PST by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

You're right, well worth hilighting - that's big.


12 posted on 11/03/2006 10:39:12 AM PST by agrace (http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/agrace/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Knitting A Conundrum

"Bears repeating: "

Needs to be shouted from the roof tops.


13 posted on 11/03/2006 10:39:13 AM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

Absolutely!


14 posted on 11/03/2006 10:40:57 AM PST by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952
"Second, my staff's preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents.

That's a crock. The IAEA said Saddam was innocent./s

15 posted on 11/03/2006 10:43:06 AM PST by processing please hold (If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain

could be the other way around. its so hard to tell when they are so constantly intertwined in such an unsightly orgy of liberal hysteria....


16 posted on 11/03/2006 10:44:15 AM PST by bpjam (Not Voting in '06? Turn in your VRWC card at exit quietly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"That said, it is also important to emphasize that the IAEA, contrary to its assertions, never raised any concerns about this material with the United States Government before going to the press. Similarly, the DNI's office has informed me that no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday. If there were such problems, they would have been better addressed through the appropriate channels rather than the press.

"These documents also raise several additional issues of interest. First, it is extraordinary that the New York Times now acknowledges that the captured documents demonstrate that '[Saddam] Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.' This only reinforces the value of these documents in understanding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Only 1 percent of the estimated 120 million pages of captured documents have been reviewed, and we must continue working to promptly understand these materials. If there is concern about Saddam's nuclear program, there should be similar concern about potential connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda suggested in the documents.

Read the whole thing.

17 posted on 11/03/2006 10:44:20 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WBL 1952

O.K. Very Good.
.
Now WHAT are we going to DO ABOUT IRAN !!!!!


18 posted on 11/03/2006 10:45:29 AM PST by PEACE ENFORCER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PEACE ENFORCER
Now WHAT are we going to DO ABOUT IRAN !!!!!

Here's a hint, look to NK to see what we will do....

19 posted on 11/03/2006 10:47:54 AM PST by processing please hold (If you can't stand behind our military, stand in front of them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

This is what I don't get:

If Republicans had a huge press conference right now or this evening and repeated Hoekstra's statement in full and highlighted the portion you highlighted as well as others, Democrats would NOT gain control of either house of Congress. It just wouldn't happen.


20 posted on 11/03/2006 10:51:22 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-118 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson